Hi Bill ... Film seems to be doing just fine here. There's a nice-sized B&W only lab that's always busy with custom developing and printing - they don't donk around with digital, at least that was the case the last time I talked with the owner, a few labs that process and print film as well as work with digi and offer custom scanning services, Rob Reiter's LightRoom which does a big business in high-end scanning and giclee, and a couple of camera shops that are always busy selling film and accessories. And that's just in a radius of about a mile or so.
Mo was telling me that a lot of her customers who were shooting digital have switched back to film - Kevin, who does the custom scanning, is always busy - can't recall a day I've been there when he's not been hard at work scanning somebody's film. Was just a couple-three weeks ago I was watching a photographer photograph the owner of the biggest local produce market in Berkeley for a magazine cover - shooting 6x6 with his 'blad. A client of mine who owns a commercial agency in San Francisco shoots nothing but med-format and large format film, and San Francisco has quite a few shops that specialize in custom printing for photogs like my client. One of the camera shops I visit is selling "Film is Not Dead" T-shirts ;-)) I think I grabbed a snap of the sample shirt hung on the wall just below the Moose head <LOL> Digi shooters may need high quality printing of their images, at least based on the results I've seen from the local Costco and Ritz camera. Well, maybe not from a custom lab, but certainly from a competent one. Chris, the top printer in the lab I use, has supposedly tweaked his Frontier to allow for finer adjustments, and he's got a great eye for color. I think those are important - certainly worthwhile - considerations. Plus, this lab provides their own profiles which are updated regularly. When I ask for proof prints, they're made with different profiles so I can see if one may be preferable to another. Usually the one I've used at home works great, but every now and then printing with a different profile provides nicer results. This was especially valuable this last time because I was having some trouble with their Frontier profile on my system here. I wish the less expansive labs produced better quality and more consistent results, and had people to talk with when there are problems or concerns. But they don't .... so the custom and pro labs are the way to go. The 10x15 proof prints I last got cost $12.00 apiece, and they looked quite good. I was able to clearly see where I needed to make improvements, and they were of excellent quality. My only complaint with one of the labs is that one guy is a little careless with the dip and dunk machine, so he doesn't do my film any more. He's been reprimanded, and is probably going to be out the door sometime soon, but for now I get a different processor guy. Shel > [Original Message] > From: William Robb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[email protected]> > Date: 6/21/2005 3:37:14 PM > Subject: Re: Are your photos too good? > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Shel Belinkoff" > Subject: Re: Are your photos too good? > > > > Hi Bill, > > > > As said in an earlier message, a copied photo is pretty obvious. But I was > > talking about film, scanned images on CD, and those images on memory > > cards. > > Therin lies the problem for us. > It's pretty easy too scan a picture, twonk it around in Photoshop (even the > junior imaging programs will do well enough) for a while until it looks > good, and plonk it onto a CD or memory card. > If you've done a scan from a neg or slide, you can provide the original as > proof of ownership, but this is often more difficult to prove with digital > only work. > > > > I mention corporate mentality - and maybe that was not the best > > descriptive > > choice of words - but the big operations are the ones with the deep > > pockets > > and the ones, as has been mentioned here, that are most open to lawsuits. > > In addition, at least here, the Wal-Marts and the Ritz and the Wolf camera > > places have, for the most part, no real personal relationship with their > > customers, and, from what I've been able to ascertain, no amateur who is > > serious about his/her work, and certainly no professionals that I know, > > would use these shops, in part because the staff changes frequently and > > the > > quality and service is very poor. And, of course, there's no such thing > > as > > custom processing and printing, or making of large prints, or getting > > custom printing or scanning services. So the only people these places do > > work for are the home snapshooter and , imo, the low-end amateurs. > > Sadly for my market area, the last of the custom labs closed shop last fall, > and I now know of only one pro photographer in this area still running his > own lab/darkroom for his own work, and it looks like he is shutting down > that end of his operation in the near future. > > I presume the film market is still healthy where you are? > I really don't think the digital shooter needs a high end custom photo lab > like the old days. > I can take a file from my camera, do what needs to be done to it at home, > and submit a finished file to the lab, all ready to go. > It's plug and play printing. > As long as the lab can provide fairly consistent colour balancing from day > to day, it doesn't even matter if the operators know how to print. > > I try to have a good relationship with my customer base, and it pays off for > me. I've taught my better customers how to get better pictures by profiling > their equipment to match mine and by making intelligent image settings. > OTOH, I seem to be the only tech in the place that actually has a client > base. > > William Robb > > > > > > The places I use know their customers and, perhaps, their customers don't > > try copying the work of others. I'll ask Mo about this today or tomorrow, > > when I next see her. I'd like to know what, if any, policy her lab has. > >
